* [Bug fortran/56581] seg fault
2013-03-09 20:43 [Bug fortran/56581] New: seg fault walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
@ 2013-03-10 12:23 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-03-10 16:03 ` walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-03-10 12:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56581
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-03-10 12:22:54 UTC ---
Unfortunately, I cannot reproduct this on Linux (also not
with valgrind).
> The code is in error as the statement function
> is commented out, but seg error . . .
> Windows 7 running under cygwin, bash.
The code, as attached, has
C
MCL23200
AKF(A,B,E,X)=A*EXP(-B*E)*X
MCL23210
which I presume is the statement function. It is not commented out,
as far as I can see.
Is it possible for you to run f951.exe under gdb? This might
give us some more information to work on.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/56581] seg fault
2013-03-09 20:43 [Bug fortran/56581] New: seg fault walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
2013-03-10 12:23 ` [Bug fortran/56581] " tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-03-10 16:03 ` walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
2013-03-10 16:29 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: walt.brainerd at gmail dot com @ 2013-03-10 16:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56581
--- Comment #2 from Walt Brainerd <walt.brainerd at gmail dot com> 2013-03-10 16:03:37 UTC ---
Sorry, I was trying lots of different experiments and apparently
removed the ! before attaching the file.
I put it back in and now cannot reproduce the error.
Ignore this for now and I will let you know if I come up with
something again that is more useful to you.
After sending the bug report, I discovered another strange thing.
The first 24? bits of the file are junk that does not show up in any
editor. "cat" shows a little open rectangle and "od" shows it.
(These files were sent to me by somebody else.)
Sorry to trouble you and thanks for the work you guys do
on gfortran.
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 5:22 AM, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56581
>
> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
>
> What |Removed |Added
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CC| |tkoenig at gcc dot
> gnu.org
>
> --- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-03-10
> 12:22:54 UTC ---
> Unfortunately, I cannot reproduct this on Linux (also not
> with valgrind).
>
> > The code is in error as the statement function
> > is commented out, but seg error . . .
>
> > Windows 7 running under cygwin, bash.
>
> The code, as attached, has
>
> C
> MCL23200
> AKF(A,B,E,X)=A*EXP(-B*E)*X
> MCL23210
>
> which I presume is the statement function. It is not commented out,
> as far as I can see.
>
> Is it possible for you to run f951.exe under gdb? This might
> give us some more information to work on.
>
> --
> Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You reported the bug.
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/56581] seg fault
2013-03-09 20:43 [Bug fortran/56581] New: seg fault walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
2013-03-10 12:23 ` [Bug fortran/56581] " tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-03-10 16:03 ` walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
@ 2013-03-10 16:29 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-03-10 19:25 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-03-10 16:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56581
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed| |2013-03-10
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-03-10 16:29:19 UTC ---
No problem :-)
Changing the bug status to WAITING, then.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/56581] seg fault
2013-03-09 20:43 [Bug fortran/56581] New: seg fault walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2013-03-10 16:29 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-03-10 19:25 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-03-10 19:39 ` walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-03-10 19:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56581
Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-03-10 19:24:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> After sending the bug report, I discovered another strange thing.
> The first 24? bits of the file are junk that does not show up in any
> editor. "cat" shows a little open rectangle and "od" shows it.
> (These files were sent to me by somebody else.)
The extra bytes could be a Unicode byte-order marker? Especially under Windows,
some editors like to insert them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-8#Byte_order_mark
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/56581] seg fault
2013-03-09 20:43 [Bug fortran/56581] New: seg fault walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2013-03-10 19:25 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-03-10 19:39 ` walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
2013-03-11 10:18 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: walt.brainerd at gmail dot com @ 2013-03-10 19:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56581
--- Comment #5 from Walt Brainerd <walt.brainerd at gmail dot com> 2013-03-10 19:39:42 UTC ---
I think that is exactly what they were (wrote a little
program to get rid of them).
The files were produced by OCR and then edited (not by me), so that
is all possible.
Thanks for pointing this out to me.
The Intel compiler seemed to completely ignore them,
but gfortran sometimes bombed and sometimes didn't
with f951.exe: out of memory . . . gfortran compiles all
the files in the set without a problem now. It is possible
that also caused the internal compiler error, but who knows.
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 12:24 PM, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56581
>
> Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
>
> What |Removed |Added
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CC| |burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
>
> --- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-03-10
> 19:24:31 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > After sending the bug report, I discovered another strange thing.
> > The first 24? bits of the file are junk that does not show up in any
> > editor. "cat" shows a little open rectangle and "od" shows it.
> > (These files were sent to me by somebody else.)
>
> The extra bytes could be a Unicode byte-order marker? Especially under
> Windows,
> some editors like to insert them:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-8#Byte_order_mark
>
> --
> Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You reported the bug.
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/56581] seg fault
2013-03-09 20:43 [Bug fortran/56581] New: seg fault walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2013-03-10 19:39 ` walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
@ 2013-03-11 10:18 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-03-11 10:51 ` [Bug fortran/56581] Segfault when reading source file which starts with a byte-order mark (-cpp works) burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-03-11 10:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56581
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-03-11 10:17:47 UTC ---
Thus all fine.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/56581] Segfault when reading source file which starts with a byte-order mark (-cpp works)
2013-03-09 20:43 [Bug fortran/56581] New: seg fault walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2013-03-11 10:18 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-03-11 10:51 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-03-12 22:05 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-03-13 16:13 ` walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-03-11 10:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56581
Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID |
Summary|seg fault |Segfault when reading
| |source file which starts
| |with a byte-order mark
| |(-cpp works)
Ever Confirmed|1 |0
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-03-11 10:51:32 UTC ---
For completeness, the first line of the attachment starts with (od -x):
0000000 bbef 43bf 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020
EF BB BF is the byte-order mark. (Followed by "C" and " ".)
It works if one uses "-cpp" as, seemingly, libcpp supports this. I think we
should consider supporting those BOM.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/56581] Segfault when reading source file which starts with a byte-order mark (-cpp works)
2013-03-09 20:43 [Bug fortran/56581] New: seg fault walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2013-03-11 10:51 ` [Bug fortran/56581] Segfault when reading source file which starts with a byte-order mark (-cpp works) burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-03-12 22:05 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-03-13 16:13 ` walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-03-12 22:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56581
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |ice-on-invalid-code,
| |rejects-valid
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2013-03-10 00:00:00 |2013-03-12
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-03-12 22:05:12 UTC ---
We try to support this, but apparently it doesn't work
(see line 2015 and following of scanner.c).
Same thing happens for 4.6 and 4.7.
Valgrind tells me
==11226== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==11226== Copyright (C) 2002-2011, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==11226== Using Valgrind-3.7.0 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==11226== Command: /home/ig25/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.8.0/f951 ice.f
==11226==
==11226== Invalid write of size 4
==11226== at 0x580400: load_line(_IO_FILE*, unsigned int**, int*, int
const*) (scanner.c:1646)
==11226== by 0x5811C3: load_file(char const*, char const*, bool)
(scanner.c:2009)
==11226== by 0x582F82: gfc_new_file() (scanner.c:2120)
==11226== by 0x5A1DA7: gfc_init() (f95-lang.c:224)
==11226== by 0x94F286: toplev_main(int, char**) (toplev.c:1700)
==11226== by 0x5A38454: (below main) (in /lib64/libc-2.15.so)
==11226== Address 0x5ea3e30 is 0 bytes after a block of size 288 alloc'd
==11226== at 0x4C292B8: calloc (in
/usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)
==11226== by 0xE54110: xcalloc (xmalloc.c:162)
==11226== by 0x58155E: load_file(char const*, char const*, bool)
(scanner.c:2030)
==11226== by 0x582F82: gfc_new_file() (scanner.c:2120)
==11226== by 0x5A1DA7: gfc_init() (f95-lang.c:224)
==11226== by 0x94F286: toplev_main(int, char**) (toplev.c:1700)
==11226== by 0x5A38454: (below main) (in /lib64/libc-2.15.so)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/56581] Segfault when reading source file which starts with a byte-order mark (-cpp works)
2013-03-09 20:43 [Bug fortran/56581] New: seg fault walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2013-03-12 22:05 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-03-13 16:13 ` walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: walt.brainerd at gmail dot com @ 2013-03-13 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56581
--- Comment #9 from Walt Brainerd <walt.brainerd at gmail dot com> 2013-03-13 16:12:35 UTC ---
Thanks for sending me this.
Maybe I did after all provide something that will help you.
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:05 PM, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56581
>
> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
>
> What |Removed |Added
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Keywords| |ice-on-invalid-code,
> | |rejects-valid
> Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
> Last reconfirmed|2013-03-10 00:00:00 |2013-03-12
> Ever Confirmed|0 |1
>
> --- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-03-12
> 22:05:12 UTC ---
> We try to support this, but apparently it doesn't work
> (see line 2015 and following of scanner.c).
>
> Same thing happens for 4.6 and 4.7.
>
> Valgrind tells me
>
> ==11226== Memcheck, a memory error detector
> ==11226== Copyright (C) 2002-2011, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
> ==11226== Using Valgrind-3.7.0 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
> ==11226== Command: /home/ig25/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.8.0/f951
> ice.f
> ==11226==
> ==11226== Invalid write of size 4
> ==11226== at 0x580400: load_line(_IO_FILE*, unsigned int**, int*, int
> const*) (scanner.c:1646)
> ==11226== by 0x5811C3: load_file(char const*, char const*, bool)
> (scanner.c:2009)
> ==11226== by 0x582F82: gfc_new_file() (scanner.c:2120)
> ==11226== by 0x5A1DA7: gfc_init() (f95-lang.c:224)
> ==11226== by 0x94F286: toplev_main(int, char**) (toplev.c:1700)
> ==11226== by 0x5A38454: (below main) (in /lib64/libc-2.15.so)
> ==11226== Address 0x5ea3e30 is 0 bytes after a block of size 288 alloc'd
> ==11226== at 0x4C292B8: calloc (in
> /usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)
> ==11226== by 0xE54110: xcalloc (xmalloc.c:162)
> ==11226== by 0x58155E: load_file(char const*, char const*, bool)
> (scanner.c:2030)
> ==11226== by 0x582F82: gfc_new_file() (scanner.c:2120)
> ==11226== by 0x5A1DA7: gfc_init() (f95-lang.c:224)
> ==11226== by 0x94F286: toplev_main(int, char**) (toplev.c:1700)
> ==11226== by 0x5A38454: (below main) (in /lib64/libc-2.15.so)
>
> --
> Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You reported the bug.
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread